<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wikidot="http://www.wikidot.com/rss-namespace">

	<channel>
		<title>Ciaran O&#039;Riordan: Abandoning software patents?</title>
		<link>http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-194494/ciaran-o-riordan:abandoning-software-patents</link>
		<description>Posts in the discussion thread &quot;Ciaran O&#039;Riordan: Abandoning software patents?&quot; - On Monday, November 9th, the Supreme Court will hear the case of Bilski&#039;s business method patent. Being the first review of patentable subject matter since 1981, this decision could make the rules for decades to come. The court will review the 2008 ruling of the CAFC which created the &quot;particular machine or transformation&quot; test. This test, depending on who&#039;s reading it, could significantly narrow the scope for patenting software ideas. The Supreme Court isn&#039;t obliged to rule on the patentability of software ideas. Bilski&#039;s patent is a business method patent, not a software patent. So why might the court make a broad ruling which would cover software? For people who are already aware of the legal arguments, I&#039;d like to offer a review of the socio-economic arguments for abandoning software patents.</description>
				<copyright></copyright>
		<lastBuildDate></lastBuildDate>
		
					<item>
				<guid>http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-194494#post-626717</guid>
				<title>Ciaran O&#039;Riordan: Abandoning software patents?</title>
				<link>http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-194494/ciaran-o-riordan:abandoning-software-patents#post-626717</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 20:16:06 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>ggiedke</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>32664</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p><em>"On Monday, November 9th, the Supreme Court will hear the case of Bilski's business method patent. Being the first review of patentable subject matter since 1981, this decision could make the rules for decades to come. The court will review the 2008 ruling of the CAFC which created the "particular machine or transformation" test. This test, depending on who's reading it, could significantly narrow the scope for patenting software ideas. The Supreme Court isn't obliged to rule on the patentability of software ideas. Bilski's patent is a business method patent, not a software patent. So why might the court make a broad ruling which would cover software? For people who are already aware of the legal arguments, I'd like to offer a review of the socio-economic arguments for abandoning software patents."</em></p> <p>Source: <a href="http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/11/abandoning-software-patents.html">http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/11/abandoning-software-patents.html</a></p> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
				</channel>
</rss>